Nonureva Really Surprised!

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Neil Doyle There are two standout features of this film version of John Steinbeck's TORTILLA FLAT. One is the improbably beautiful HEDY LAMARR as a Portugese girl, showing more fire and spirit than usual in an unusual role (for her). The other is FRANK MORGAN, who in an exquisite sequence set in a forest, does an unforgettable job as an old man who thinks his dogs have seen a vision.Other than that, it's pretty hard to accept SPENCER TRACY (again assuming the sort of accent he had in CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS) as the town's laziest and most conniving drifter, JOHN GARFIELD, SHELDON LEONARD and others as Latinos with Brooklyn accents showing, and AKIM TAMIROFF, the only supporting player who seems the least bit authentic.The story is almost non-existent, a minor trifle in which it's pretty obvious that the California fishing community has been filmed on studio soundstages at MGM with the actors often photographed against location shots filmed in northern California's Monterey. Definitely a Victor Fleming film that hasn't dated well and many will find offensive in its racial stereotypes. It's a wonder J. CARROL NAISH didn't find his way into the suppporting cast. He would have been a lot more believable than casting actors like ALLEN JENKINS and CONNIE GILCHRIST as Chicanos.An almost unrecognizable FRANK MORGAN deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination as The Pirate, a lazy, dog-loving eccentric whom Tracy tricks into revealing the whereabouts of his money. He's in the film's most memorable sequence but most of the film is slow and talky to an irritating degree and filled with unsympathetic characters.

theredflyer I grew up in Monterey and I vividly remember my father speaking of these characters when he was growing up. Steinbeck sought to place these men in a motif that was similar to that of the knights of the Round Table showing all their excesses, loves, and loyalty to each other. While the film shows 1940's insensitivities it also captures a great deal of Steinbeck's purposes. It might be helpful to remember that Steinbeck wasn't writing of chicano's or even Mexicans per se, but of the creollo or Californio, i.e. the Spanish and later Mexican vaquero who ruled and reigned in Californio long before the Mexican national arrived in California.

MartinHafer I don't know if Hispanics are offended by this film. My frustration with this film is NOT because I am politically correct (I am proud that I am NOT), but because the casting and performances were just so stupid. So, even if most are NOT offended, I was offended by how stupid the studio thought the viewers were to believe that Spencer Tracy, Heddy Lamarr, John Garfield and Sheldon Leonard were even the least bit plausible as CHICANOS!! Come off it--I think Hattie McDaniel or Maureen O'Hara would have been about as believable if they'd been offered these roles! As a result, it looked more like a performance of Jose Jimenez than a drama about the plight of these poor immigrants.

cypresscj This movie is full of surprises, not the least is the casting. (Was that "Toto" as "one of the boys"?) So many of the cast are in our movie memory banks. It's a well-acted, well-scripted film that can be enjoyed by the whole family.